Seems to me that one of the biggest obstacles to starting now on a crash program for energy sustainability is cultural.

That is, as Americans we have come to believe that certain aspects or our "way of life" are absolutely guaranteed us, and that any programs that alter that lifestyle in any way whatsoever are evidence of socialism, weakness, alarmism, or all three, and moreover represent an intolerable hardship.

Think of the responses, often of these boards, to the assertion that SUVs are socially irresponsible: they're not illegal, I can afford the gas, and the government has no right to tell me what to drive. Also, the only people against them are self-hating crypto-homosexual pussies.

Never mind that the entire SUV phenomena is very recent and can be clearly demonstrated to serve no real unmet need outside of macho vanity; it has become an inalienable right.

The American character is heavily invested in these kind of ideas of "independence" and "self-sufficiency" and "freedom"; we seem to have little taste for "shared sacrifice to make the burden lighter for everyone".

Many of the changes that could ease the transition to alternative energy sources would not, in fact, be particularly burdensome, if they were applied within a coherent framework that spread their effects across as many energy users as possible to achieve the greatest achievable economics of scale.

Photovoltaics would already compete with traditional energy sources if there were a large enough market; that market could have been designed into a real national energy policy.

But no policy has ever been forthcoming because it would require Americans to accept something they didn't necessarily choose. "Why should I have to pay for gummit mandated whatcha-m'callits I don't even want? I thought I lived in America, not communist russia!" Same with hybrids, natural gas, et al: we could begin to change and extend our window of opportunity by decades right now just by facing facts, and responding accordingly with appropriate technology. If the "free market" won't do it now, call it national security. After all, nobody waited for the "market" to reply to Hitler's threat to the world.

At the end of the day, though, in our heart of hearts, we think God owes us the unprecedented comfort of our current situation. We can't bring ourselves to imagine, or perhaps have lost the ability to imagine, a world that requires us to things differently, even when those things are fairly benign. Like children, we just can't stand to be told "no".

No faggot pussy "world" is going to tell us what to do. Hurtling towards a cliff with our foot firmly off the brake is somehow a measure of our strength of character.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

More news for Scott and the Rose colored looking glass crowd to ignore:

Quote:

from the NYT

High fuel prices are here to stay, at least for the near future, because no relief is in sight for tight oil supplies.

Most oil-producing countries and the major oil companies already produce all they can. Smaller companies and wildcatters are reopening some mothballed wells, but their combined output is not nearly enough to affect the global supply.....

Since oil is made of decayed fish( excuse my spelling), if we would stop using oil for a long time maybe over 300 years, we could see resupplied oil sources on Earth. Hopefully in those 5-7 years we will be using hydrogen cars. But, knowing society we will nevr stop using oil intill Earth is dried of every resource there is.

Oil is a little more complex than just decayed fish: it's eons old and is subjected to high pressure due to being underground.

As an interesting aside, diesel vehicles can be run on sunflower oil (it's illegal in to use sunflower oil as vehicle fuel in the UK because it isn't taxed appropriately). Is it feasible to grow enough oil?

Originally posted by quagmireSince oil is made of decayed fish( excuse my spelling), if we would stop using oil for a long time maybe over 300 years, we could see resupplied oil sources on Earth. Hopefully in those 5-7 years we will be using hydrogen cars. But, knowing society we will nevr stop using oil intill Earth is dried of every resource there is.

I think it takes more than 300 years for dead marine life to be converted to oil, something like a million years. I think its because of the temperature and pressures. I also doubt that there is as much marine life in the oceans as there was a few million years ago.

Oil prices vaulted to a 21-year high yesterday on fears that an attack on Middle East oil facilities may stress world fuel supplies already eroded by heady demand growth in China and the United States.

US light crude rose 37 cents to $41.45 a barrel, an all-time high in the 21-year history of the New York Mercantile Exchange contract. London Brent added 19 cents to $38.68 a barrel.

Warnings from a senior Russian official that oil exports from the world's second biggest exporter have hit a ceiling after many years of growth underlined the strain on global supply.

"Realistically, the capacity of suppliers does not today meet growing demand in places such as China or India. And you have to take into account the state of affairs in Iraq," said Semyon Vainshtok, head of Russia's oil pipeline monopoly.

Economic expansion in China, bolstered by renewed US growth, has placed world supplies under increasing strain, leaving the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, bar top producer Saudi Arabia, pumping almost flat out to meet demand.

Originally posted by ScottYea those things have never been said in the past.

Even though you were being smug-n-sarcastic, you're absolutely right about these things:

Quote:

Warnings from a senior Russian official that oil exports from the world's second biggest exporter have hit a ceiling after many years of growth underlined the strain on global supply.

Economic expansion in China, bolstered by renewed US growth, has placed world supplies under increasing strain, leaving the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, bar top producer Saudi Arabia, pumping almost flat out to meet demand

First off the current limit on oil production has nothing to do with available oil sources. It has to do with an increase in demand tied with a limited production capability. The oil producers were not ready for China and India becoming industrialized as quickly as they did. The stores are there, the taps are not.

Second, we already have alternate sources of energy available. This has been said already but those of you who have bought into the peak oil scare don't want to recognize the readily accessible alternatives. Bio-Diesel, 10%, 20% ethenol mixtures, solar fields, wind fields, coal gasification gas turbines, etc... We have alternatives. When the price of oil used for energy excedds the cost of developing and implementing the alternative sources we simply switch. When we switch, the price of the alternative sources will go down. That is how markets work. Alternate sources ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE we are simply waiting for the markets to decide when and how to implement these sources.

Third, didn't we hear about energy shortages a few years ago? Oh yeah, California was going to suffer from cascading blackouts and massive power shourtages because the plants "couldn't produce enough power to meet demand." Hmmm didn't that turn out to be a crisis driven by fear and corporate greed? Didn't a few energy companies limit the energy production in order to generate higher profits per KW hour? Yep. Opec is a conglomerate of nationalized oil producing countries who have a vested interest in selling oil for top dollar. They will milk consumers for as much as they can. As long as consumers are willing to pay $x.xx for energy then they will sell for $xx.xx per barrel. If a few consumers drop out of the market or switch to alternative sources then those losses in profit are made up(and exceeded) by the remaining consumers who pay more for their energy. Anyone who has had College Algebra or Calculus I should know about optimization where higher sales at x may or may not produce more profit than lower sales at y.

People need to stop crying about the sky falling because the electricity you get at home for the most part does not come from oil. You're home energy comes from hydro-electric, Nuclear, Coal fire, Coal gasification, and natural gas derived as a oil refinery by product or tapped from the earth, wind, and solar array. The majority of oil use is concentrated on transportation then on polymer production (plastics). When driving from A to B using oil cost more than driving from A to B using bio-diesel derived from a variety of unused sources (corn husks, and other waster plant material) then we will switch to bio-diesel as the norm. We will step up or usage of ethonol blends before too long once the cost becomes viable. Pure ethonol exhaust tends to burn eyes when burned so it isn't a viable solution as yet but a 10 or 20 percent blend will greatly reduce our dependence on oil as a source of power.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

I would think that the big question with Faust's "switch to biodiesel" scenario is whether or not when you scale up the process to meet the enormous demands of American petroleum usage, do you start getting problems?

Like, is there actually enough waste biomass to meet this level of demand? If not, how many acres have to be under cultivation for specifically this application? What are the byproducts of producing biodiesel, and would they be a problem at very high levels of production?

I'm just wondering if some aspects of this technology seem very benign at the moment because deployment is so slight, but would become a major headache when multiplied by a factor of a million or so.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Faust: we don't have anything even remotely close to an "alternative energy source" that can utilize existing infrastructure as well as oil, produce all the different raw materials that oil is used to produce, or replace oil in any meaningful way at all. None. To argue otherwise is to ignore the limited utility of most of the technologies you named, and the fact that the problem goes well beyond just ["making fuel"]. You can respond to that or not; it won't change the inaccuracy of your assumptions.

And the notion than China and India somehow creeped up on us, but that now that we're aware of their demand, we'll simply tap into abundant new oil sources, is fantasy. Show some proof that such sources are known to exist and are within easy reach of existing technologies and oil fields. Even if some abundant oil field exists that we haven't drilled, that doesn't mean it's *able* to be drilled with any relative efficiency or cost-effectiveness.

And Scott: no, they haven't been said before, not in this context. Of course, feel free to prove us wrong with links and relevant quotations from people in the industry, who are basically hinting at the fact that we've hit the plateau of oil production, and that existing reserves have been wildly exaggerated. This has all cropped up in the last few years. No one was saying we had hit Peak Oil or that reserve numbers were badly miscalculated in 1990 or 1980 or even in the 70's when people's paranoia about oil dependancy was rampant.

Originally posted by ScottYea those things have never been said in the past.

It's a good thing to know that the Earth will never be struck by a large asteroid.

How do I know this?

Well, many people have already predicted that we'd be struck by an asteroid on various dates and times that have come and gone without incident. The big strike never happened. They were all wrong, wrong, wrong.

Therefore, logically we must conclude that we are forever and ever protected against all asteroid strikes, and that anyone, even with really good new data, is a crackpot like all the rest. The pattern has been established and is, um, irrefutable. Yeah, that's the ticket.

I hope Faust9 doesn't leave this thread because he presents the most rational, least alarmist outlook on our future energy consumption. Scott may be anatagonizing with "the sky is falling" quips but the consipiratory nature of some these posts seems to beg for it. Road warriors indeed. Markets and energy consumptions will change, not overnight but you can already see some shift with hybrid production cars etc.

Make me wonder how many here stocked their garages with water and rations to weather the apocolypse-that-wasnt... Y2K? \

Originally posted by dviantRoad warriors indeed. Markets and energy consumptions will change, not overnight but you can already see some shift with hybrid production cars etc.

Hybrid cars are a nothing but a blip so far in auto sales, while SUVs, light trucks, and minivans are still all the rage, their popularity barely dented yet by higher gas prices.

Quote:

Make me wonder how many here stocked their garages with water and rations to weather the apocolypse-that-wasnt... Y2K? \

I wasn't worried about Y2K. Do you really think concerns about peak oil and Y2K are equivalent?

Peak Oil is all about timing. What makes you so certain that market mechanisms will ensure pleasant, gradual timing? That oil prices will rise slowly enough for us to adapt comfortably, that new technologies will be phased in smoothly?

Are you simply comforted by the "logic" that doomsayers are so often wrong that all gloomy prediction can be safely dismissed?

Originally posted by shetlinePeak Oil is all about timing. What makes you so certain that market mechanisms will ensure pleasant, gradual timing? That oil prices will rise slowly enough for us to adapt comfortably, that new technologies will be phased in smoothly?

It seems to me that there's two main threads to the Peak Oil issue: the first is about the economic dislocation that would occur in a forced scramble to replacement (and almost certainly less convenient) fuel sources.

The other thread is about the role of petrochemicals in the Green Revolution of the '60s and '70s. We won't just be paying more for our petroleum (gasoline to you Yanks) -- fertilisers will become increasingly scarce and expensive. Food production will presumably decline, and perhaps this will be exacerbated by a decline in the use of automated farming equipment and mass haulage. And this is to say nothing of the depletion of soils around the globe as a result of modern farming practices.

This second aspect of the problem is perhaps more of the worry than the first. Even if we manage to effect a transition to alternative energy sources, we might still be faced with a world that simply contains more people than it can feed.

Of course I hope that I'm completely overstating this problem: let's raise our glasses of soylent green towards a brave new world.

Originally posted by shetlineI wasn't worried about Y2K. Do you really think concerns about peak oil and Y2K are equivalent?

Everyone talks about Y2K as the "chicken little" poster boy. But here's the thing. We saw it coming. We knew it might be a big problem. Starting 5-10 years ahead of time, we started pouring major resources into making sure that it wouldn't be a problem. We knew the ultimate deadline by when all the fixes had to be finished, and they were. Small problems cropped up ahead of time, but those were taken care of. In the end, all the preparation worked. No problem.

We've barely hit #1 with oil, and there's plenty of controversy about #2. And zero effort at #3. It would be like we only just realized that Y2K might be a problem, and we're not sure if today's date is February 4, 1999 (still time) or January 2, 2000 (too late?).

I thought I would update this thread with the comments made today by the OPEC President regarding crude oil prices surging to $44/bbl for US light:

Quote:

The latest surge in oil prices comes after OPEC President Purnomo Yusgiantoro said the cartel had no extra oil to immediately supply the world market to bring down prices.

"The oil price is very high, it's crazy. There is no additional supply," Purnomo told reporters in Jakarta.

"Minister Naimi has said Saudi Arabia can increase production but they cannot do it immediately," he said, referring to Ali al-Naimi, oil minister for the biggest exporter Saudi Arabia.

Purnomo's comments echoed those on Monday of Algerian Oil Minister Chakib Khelil, who said the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries had done all it could to stop this year's oil price rally.

"OPEC can do nothing," Khelil told reporters in Algiers.

Now, on the one hand, they must be enjoying these high prices, and are motivated to keep them high. On the other hand, with the market in its current state, they could surely bring a fair bit of extra oil to the market without sending prices crashing. I'd like to believe the Economist when they say that the high price of crude lately is due more to a "terror premium" than to any lack of supply. But if supply is so tight as to be unable to handle even a mild shock, what does that say about the day-to-day situation just a couple of years from now, as demand continues to grow?

Originally posted by TowelBut if supply is so tight as to be unable to handle even a mild shock, what does that say about the day-to-day situation just a couple of years from now, as demand continues to grow?

We are in the shit. That's what it says.

When supply peaks (which it will within a decade, two if you're wilfully optimistic) then ... our lives will change forever.

I'm a stuck record on this one but this is way more important then al Qaeda.

Here is my point of view; I am 14 years old. Even if it happens 20 years from now, I'll still be here.

I am watching the enourmous party the world is throwing thanks to oil. Just look around you. How much do you think was made from oil? The imac's plastic, the silicion for the chips inside was mined and refined with oil and coal which was also mined with oil with refined into gasoline or deisel with more oil. The wood for my bed was harvested by machines burning oil. The metal for my lamp was mined and heated and manufactured by oil and electricity powered by oil and coal. The paint in my room, oil refined and created. Even my clothing was transported to the local store by a oil burning truck, the store itself was built by machines burning oil which were made with oil. Every little thing in my life has had oil involved in someway or another. Just think about how much modernized societies revolve around oil.

For most of the alternatives fuels it is to late. If we wanted to switch to bio-diesel, we couldn't. It would take the entire United States land just to grow enough corn, not including any room for the citizens or for actually feeding them. Our government is inefficient and clogged, they may want to do something, but they can't outrage the public with them admitting their lies of security and safety and taking proactive measures. Not even our way of life will remain, for our entire economic system is based on CONSTANT GROWTH which cannot be mainted if we hope to survive. It's all based on taking out loans with interest to make money (literaly). The key thing there is with INTEREST, it means you have to make more (grow) money than you originally started with, and with out oil you just can't get enough of an efficiant energy return to make enough money to pay it off. So the economy is pretty much doomed for anywhere based on constant growth. Nuclear plants take energy to build and maintain, and by the time we need them, will we have enough energy? Another way to think is to compare money to energy. The more valuable the currency, the more energy you can get with it. So when the economy goes down, the price of everything goes up (inflation) and you get less energy, in whatever form, for more money. With this in mind, remember that everything is subject to the law of diminishing returns, so you can not possibly get more energy out of anything than you put in (remember money = a certain amount of energy) for awhile, the loss is exceptable and it appears that you are gaining energy (money and material goods), but then with out something with as much stored energy as oil, you realize that all you did was convert money (energy promise) into different kind of energy (computers, chairs, speakers, etc.) and that you actualy lost energy in the process.

There will probaly be much generational (from my generation) hatred from those less understanding of previous generations. When people of the same age wake up and look at the enormous party that was thrown by previous generations, there will be anger and hatred. So for those of you enjoying the party, I do so hope for you that you do remember to help cleaning up. What many people do forget in their guesses of how long we have oil for is that China, with the most people on earth, is industrialising. We should not even care about global warming because we will run out of oil before it gets to serious, funny how the earth is just a giant balance.

As for those who doubt that we will ever run out of oil, I would like to remind that the United States oil production peaked in 1971 and has been slipping ever since. Just to let all doubters know that it has already happened in the past, and no fossil fuel is infinite.

Sincerly, Ian

P.S. Sorry for the terribly long post and excuse any spelling errors I might have.

Originally posted by ScottHow many times in the past has oil hit a "record high"?

An infinite number. ;-)

I don't actually have anything productive to contribute here except to say that people whose opinions really ought to at least be considered have been talking about this since at least the '50s, and it's still going to bite pretty much the entire world in the ass.

a10t2's Plan for Reducing US Dependence on Oil(tm):

Short term, invest heavily in nuclear energy research and construction. Triple the installed nuclear capacity in the next ten years, and move to a fast reactor fuel cycle based on decommissioned weapons materials to stretch uranium resources.

Medium term, continue nuclear construction to supply electricity needs while using diminishing oil resources to construct a new energy infrastructure based on wind, solar, and/or geothermal power plants. Simultaneously, accelerate adoption of fuel cells. Use reactor-produced hydrogen for all transportation needs by 2025. As US transitions to a net energy producer, reinvest foreign capital in research into renewable energy sources and petroleum replacements.

Long term, retire nuclear power plants by 2075. Use synthetic petroleum products to maintain wind/solar/geothermal plants and manufacturing while continuing research into renewable energy resources like fusion.

There is an excellent article in the June 2004 issue of National Geographic called "The end of cheap oil". Very revealing stuff in it. They polled several sources from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to univiersites and the US Geologic Survey. The worst estimate for world oil production peak is 2006 outside the Middle East, 2016 in the M.E., the best estimate was 2040.
And yes, there are alternate fuel sources, but the real problem is oil based polymers. There just are not any good replacements for some of them.

The fact is oil will run out, be it sooner or later, and living like it won't run out is stupid. (10mpg HUMMERS, SUV's, etc...) To quote the final sentence in the article, "With every visit to the gas pump, after all, the end of cheap oil draws closer."

IRT SDW2001,
According to the article, the deepwater wells being explored in the Gulf of Mexico contain "more oil than you'll ever find in ANWR", but even that will taper off after 2008....

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James LovelockThe Story of Stuff

If only it were so easy to pass funding for such things. Nobody wants to back such a dangerious thing, and to do anything aggresive will get people mad that they hadn't done anything previously. Our government is controlled by the people, it's too bad that all the average "American" does is consume (recources, media (T.V.), and is unaware that oil running out has been predicted accurately for at least 40 years. So, we are a train out of control about to smash into the mountain of reality, the people up near front of the train have already started to run to the back, hoping that the inevitable doesn't happen, and the best and worst of humanity will be shown during these times to come. Will we detach ourselves from the engine of oil leading us to our own destruction? No, because we are afraid to be left behind in the world's economy.

I think the most important first step type thing we can do now, is promote fuel efficient cars. Really push them onto the market. Also, I think that all public buildings should be run on renewable energy. solar for street lights(collect and store during the day, power on at night) Wind and hydro for municipal buildings...etc. Basically concentrate renewable resources to the important infrastructure type stuff as much as possible as a top priority.

One source of power that doesn't get a whole lot of attention is Tidal power. Tidal power has the potential to make massive amounts of power, it's renewable and it's pretty safe.

of course non of this could happen while Bush is in office, he's way too tied in with the oil business.

lets have a bet...
i predict we may invade or try to topple the govt in iran
by dec 2005
the real issue is we are very heavily dependent on oil
cars apart what would take a serious blow would be agricultural production
& common stuff we take for granted...soap for example
all it needs is for our resources to dip past a certain point after which
our industrial economy would be doomed. ie how can you conduct
research if you dont have oil to power your tools.
over the next 2 years assuming the above prediction comes about
& we do see a major peak then we are looking at the age of resource wars
fought on 2 fronts. energy aka oil & water